Penalty for violations of the A.P. Saw Mill (Regulation) Rules, 1969, where the license is not revoked, is limited to the security deposit amount; compounding fees under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 cannot be erroneously applied as a penalty.

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Ananthapuramu / respondent No.5 in conducting inspection of the saw mill of the petitioner on 30.10.2015 and 31.10.2015 and not considering the explanation submitted on 21.11.2015 to the notice issued by the respondent No.5 on 07.11.2015 and consequential action (issuing notices) of the District Forest Officer, Ananthapuramu / respondent No.4 on 19.03.2016 and 30.08.2016 imposing exorbitant penalty and insisting on its payment without the authority and further action of the respondents in not considering the appeals filed by the petitioner on 03.11.2016 and 02.02.2017 to the Conservator of Forests, Ananthapuramu Forest Circle and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Agathavarappadu / respondents Nos.3 and 2 respectively as illegal; set aside the same and; direct the respondents to accord permission to conduct business as was earlier granted to the petitioner.

02. The pleaded case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows:

The petitioner is running business in the field of timber for more than 48 years under the name and style M/s. New Ganesh Saw Mill and has gained reputation in and around Ananthapuramu District. Due to advanced age of the petitioner, he could not personally go to the business premises regularly. The petitioner underwent open heart surgery in August, 2015. The business rivals developed eye-sore and, in association with some local political leaders, instigated the respondent No.5 to conduct raid. The workers employed in the mill do not know the conditions of licence. The registers were not properly maintained by the staff, but the sale and stock in trade were maintained with the aid of computer. On 30.10.2015 and the next date, the respondent No.5 got inspection of the premises of the petitioner done through his subordinates and found some irregularities. A notice vide Rc.No.194/NR/FRO/E/15 was caused to be served by the forest department on the petitioner on 07.11.2015, without furnishing any report or basis, directing to submit explanation for the allegation of variation in stock of Nallamaddi logs to a tune of 23.195 C.M.T. and Vegi logs less by 2.542 C.M.T. and teak stock less by 0.270 C.M.T., non-maintenance of Form-IIIA and IIIB registers, non-renewal of licence by the Ananthapuramu Municipality and using high power motor of 1 H.P. against licence for use of 0.5 H.P. motor. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 21.11.2015 answering each and every charge. The difference in the stock in trade was assessed only on the basis of the accounts maintained in the computer. But, the sale of the timber had not been entered manually in the concerned registers due to immobility of the petitioner during the period August, 2015 to October, 2015 due to illness. The Form-IIIA and IIIB registers were being submitted to the concerned authority on the 10th day of January every year. The petitioner could not produce the renewed licence, as it was not issued though the required fee had been paid along with an application for renewal of the licence submitted. The security amount was deposited with the department on 24.03.2015 itself. Compounding fee was paid on 18.02.2014 for use of 1 H.P. motor. The petitioner requested to drop further course of action while undertaking to pay penalty for the variation in the stock. The respondent No.5 has no